magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
· Edited 7d ago
Free public transport is not really on the table either,
Melbourne has free trams in the CBD. Making the whole Victorian public transport network free (other than on Christmas Day, when it already is) is not really talked about, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone floats the idea; the fares got bid so low in the last election that it's questionable whether they pay for the infrastructure needed to collect them (ticket barriers, ticket inspectors, etc.).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
Do you endorse "accompaniment" killings like Sati?
The voluntary form is something I can appreciate, if not endorse. Reactionary on deep love, and all.
The involuntary form can fuck off. Murder is bad, news at 11.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
22d ago
My view is opposing AI art is anti-humanist.
I oppose AI art because AI art (usually) gives money to AI companies (who are trying to end the world) and will at some (unknown) point become a memetic hazard to anyone who sees it. I think this is plenty humanist.
I agree with you about the "oh noes the artists" people, though.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
29d ago
I mean, the preferred solution to "the other guys don't take the risks seriously so they won't stop running" is generally "whip out a pistol and shoot them", although the numbers you've given are on the edges of that solution's range of optimality.
I will note that in reality, the CPC appears fairly cognisant of the risks, probably would enforce stricter controls than "Openly Evil AI" and "lol we're Meta" (Google and Anthropic are less clear), and might be amenable to an agreed slowdown (there are other nations that won't be and will need to be knocked over, but it's much easier to invade a UAE or a Cayman Islands than it is the PRC).
Also, my P(Doom|no slowdown) is like 0.95-0.97, although there will likely be a fair number of warning shots first (i.e. the "no slowdown" condition implies ignoring those warning shots); to align a neural net you need to be able to solve "what does this code do when run" (because you're checking whether a neural net has properties you want in order to procedurally mess with it, rather than explicitly writing it, and hence to train "doesn't kill me when run" you need to be able to identify "kills me when run" in a way other than "run it and see whether it kills me"), and that's the halting problem (proven unsolvable in the general case, and neural nets don't look to me like enough of a special case).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
Unprosecuted crimes are usually still counted in statistics AIUI (specifically as "unsolved"). However, the more indirect route of "progressive prosecutors decline to do their job -> reporting crime now doesn't result in the crime stopping -> people stop bothering to report it" seems to hold water.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
Riiiight, so they can be more easily doxed and their families threatened.
That's called terrorism and rebellion, and there are other ways of dealing with it. A state that hasn't at least partially failed doesn't need to hide from terrorists.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
Yes, this is a clear distinction between the two problems. Kavka's billionaire does care about what you intend to do, not only (or even at all) what you will do.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
22d ago
There are benefits, but the harm is "now 100% of the time you are second-guessing whether you're reading an LLM". That's the death knell for serious engagement, because there is no point engaging with an LLM. There are plenty of not-theMotte places to make this point.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
but still is free to publicly proclaim and propagandize them.
As I noted, this is not actually how it works in most of the non-US West. Literally, where I live (Victoria, Australia), @SecureSignals' posts on theMotte (not even what he's not said but never denied; what he's explicitly said) would (AIUI; IANAL) constitute a crime and he could be jailed for it.
As a high-profile example, Björn Höcke got fined (twice) for quoting a relatively-inoffensive Nazi slogan ("Everything for Germany"). This is a matter of record.
The simple fact of the matter in a significant chunk of the world is that Nazis are persecuted for their political views. You may think, as I do, that their views are a heap of steaming shit, and you may think, as I do, that that persecution is also a heap of steaming shit, but neither of these changes the fact of the persecution occurring.
Also, obligatory Scott quote:
If you start suggesting maybe it should switch directions and move the direction opposite the one the engine is pointed, then you might have a bad time.
Try it. Mention that you think we should undo something that’s been done over the past century or two. Maybe reverse women’s right to vote. Go back to sterilizing the disabled and feeble-minded. If you really need convincing, suggest re-implementing segregation, or how about slavery? See how far freedom of speech gets you.
In America, it will get you fired from your job and ostracized by nearly everyone. Depending on how loudly you do it, people may picket your house, or throw things at you, or commit violence against you which is then excused by the judiciary because obviously they were provoked. Despite the iconic image of the dissident sent to Siberia, this is how the Soviets dealt with most of their iconoclasts too.
If you absolutely insist on imprisonment, you can always go to Europe, where there are more than enough “hate speech” laws on the book to satisfy your wishes. But a system of repression that doesn’t involve obvious state violence is little different in effect than one that does. It’s simply more efficient and harder to overthrow.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
· Edited 15d ago
But I don't think it creates much light to try to talk about "bad faith" when describing the external behavior of a movement without any reference to the conscious experiences of anybody in the movement, whether sincere or otherwise.
From within the movement, it sure doesn't feel like it. I did say that it only counts by the outgroup-definition of bad faith, and called it a "third option".
From without, as someone who wants to know ideal behaviour for dealing with the group, the game-theoretic incentives are identical: "don't make deals with things that aren't going to honour those deals". For the outgroup, the rest is gravy; this question of "will X honour deals" is 99% of what it wants to know, because it determines whether it should make terms (and avoid a needless civil war) or fight (and avoid exploitation). That answer rests solely on the result, not the process. The rest is interesting anthropological information, but they're your outgroup; it's not like you matter to them as people and they don't care about all of the same things as you.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
17d ago
Show me an angel, so to speak.
Fun fact: when I was a teenager, I wanted to be a priest. It's just, I'd need a religious experience to tell me what to be a priest of, and I haven't had one.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
Google "Chopped Man Epidemic" for a vantablackpill.
I did, and 100% of the links are videos. I tried watching one of the less-terrible-looking videos, and it was still terrible; it started with a "preview" reel that was clearly just there to inculcate feelings of "WTF is going on" in order to maximise watchtime.
Could you summarise for people who don't feel like dipping their brains in the brain-hacking engagement-optimisation industry?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
"Women can do no wrong" is an extremely uncharitable reading of this transcript.
It's a harsh reading, but a fair one of Tonia Antoniazzi's rhetoric.
Originally passed by an all-male Parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls.
New clause 1 will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help.
As Members will know, much of the work that I do is driven by the plight of highly vulnerable women and by sex-based rights, which is why I tabled new clause 1.
While my hon. Friend and I share an interest in removing women from the criminal law relating to abortion,
The fact is that new clause 1 would take women out of the criminal justice system, and that is what has to happen and has to change now.
However, all that this new clause seeks to do is take women out of the criminal justice system now, and give them the support and help they need.
You can argue about whether her proposed amendment actually reflects this, but her rhetoric absolutely does.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
To give without restraint does not warrant taking without restraint
That isn't what @WhiningCoil and @erwgv3g34 are saying, though. They're saying that a contract which allows one side to take without restraint but does not allow the other to do so is a pure means to extort fools rather than something that is mutually beneficial. The specifics are that one can defect on providing sex within a marriage, due to marital rape, but one can't defect on providing resources, because of alimony/child support and because of divorce splitting assets.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
19d ago
Why do you believe changing the other person's mind is the point of a public argument, as opposed to shaping the audience's opinion?
I will caution that going there tends to legitimise dishonest debating, flaming, and suchlike. It's a mode I've seen advocated by social justice warriors a decade ago (admittedly, they mostly then moved on to "why even allow the debate?"), and is related to why callout culture became a thing.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
· Edited 15d ago
To which I say, you aren't offering any evidence that these compromises are offered in bad faith, you're pretending to read the minds of your outgroup and ascribe the worst possible impulses to them.
I feel there's kind of a false dichotomy/definition debate going on here.
Let's talk about Newcomb's Paradox. There is and stubbornly remains some class of people who think the solution to the problem is to intend to one-box, but then to become a two-boxer after Omega has made its prediction. This solution is fatally flawed because, to misquote Minority Report, "Omega doesn't care what you intend to do. Only what you will do". If one will "become" a two-boxer before the decision is made, then one already is a two-boxer, because the definition of a two-boxer is "one who will pick both boxes", not "one who currently thinks he will pick both boxes". If I am programming Omega, and I want to make Omega as reliable as possible, I should count such people as two-boxers because they will two-box; their false consciousness of being a one-boxer, no matter how sincerely believed, is not actually relevant.
(I went looking for the exchange I had with one of these people, but I couldn't find it.)
The shape of the excluded third option should now be pretty clear. There exists a class of people who'll sincerely make a compromise, and then change their minds later. When talking about your ingroup, the natural tendency is to count these people as "good faith", because they believe what they say and you sympathise with them. When talking about your outgroup, the natural tendency is to count these people as "bad faith" because the natural context of analysing your outgroup is wanting to know whether deals will be kept or not.
Hence, under their definitions, "deals have not been kept in the past" is evidence of bad faith, because "your outgroup doesn't care what you intend to do. Only what your movement will do". It's not totally-irrefutable evidence - movements change, and not all deals are created equal - but it's relevant. Moreover, I think modelling social justice as unable to keep its bargains is actually fairly justified, because of two reasons:
-
Social justice is leaderless. Committees are bad at keeping their bargains absent specific effort, because committees tend to include people who wanted to reject the bargain, and turnover might lead to those people gaining control of the committee at some point (and "you should respect a bargain you never agreed to, because others in your movement did over your objection" is a much-tougher sell than "you should respect a bargain you agreed to"*).
-
Social justice is not very interested in keeping historical norms. "Dead old white men", and so forth. So that tough sell is even tougher.
I get that it's really awkward to respond to the claim "you can't make a believable compromise, because you will change your mind and/or others in your movement will overrule you". I sympathise. Unfortunately, that doesn't always mean it's false.
*I'm reminded of the exchange at the end of the TNG episode "The Pegasus":
PICARD: In the Treaty of Algeron the Federation specifically agreed not to develop cloaking technology.
PRESSMAN: And that treaty is the biggest mistake we ever made! It's kept us from exploiting a vital area of defence.
PICARD: That treaty has kept us in peace for sixty years, and as a Starfleet officer, you're supposed to uphold it.
It's very, very easy to be a Pressman. There are probably still circumstances where I'd be a Pressman, despite having assimilated Ratsphere cautions against it.
To be clear, I'm in favour of co-ordinated meanness on this one - government action. I've exhaustively considered the possibilities of terrorism and with the exception of a certain harebrained scheme which requires nuclear weapons (and good luck getting those as a terrorist), the maths doesn't work out. No single point of failure, awareness raising of the mere idea is unnecessary*, and that leaves you with "terrorism only makes sense if it can be sustained over a period of time" which the Rats can't (and especially can't on a global scale).
I was initially using the metaphor of the USA in a race with other countries; by "shoot them" I meant war. Nuclear war if necessary, but as noted I'm optimistic about the possibility of getting the nuclear powers on board.
Anthropic's actions I model as a combination of lower P(Doom), self-overestimation, greater tolerance for Doom (Silicon Valley tends to attract risk-tolerant types), and most importantly "it's really important to be careful what you get good at".
*Take the climate soup-throwers as an example. They'd be of use if nobody'd heard of global warming. But people have heard of global warming, they (including me) just disagree with the soup-throwers' opinion that it's an X-risk requiring major action RTFN, and throwing soup is not going to convince people of that. Likewise, there have been enough "AI rebellion" films that that kind of terrorism is not really useful (and TBH public opinion is already pretty strongly against AI).
More options
Context Copy link